>Reducing tailstrikes is simple: Make sure everybody keeps their wings closed for one second after the leave the plane. Period.

And reducing landing fatalities is simple as well; wing level before getting to the ground. Period. Simple but didn't reduce fatalities. Saying "just make it so the incidents don't happen" is useless unless one includes a way to change what's happening now - which is that people ARE hitting tails.

"Duh-deh-dunt-dunt-dunt..another one bites the dust!"

Bill von 2 Straw men 0

Order of magnitude difference between reminding people to keep their wings closed for one second when they exit and teaching them how do do high-performance landings without injury.

And please read with comprehension, wouldja? I have repeatedly "(included) a way to change what's happening now - which is that people ARE hitting tails":

Remind people in multiple ways to keep their wings closed for one second after they exit -- and provide consequences for failure.

In reply to:

We don't need a new bureaucracy. We need more education, and a way to stop people from wingsuiting who are immune to education.

Already did by proposing consequences that include grounding them from flying wingsuits if they don't follow the one-second rule. No bureaucracy needed. No rating system needed. No grand exalted senseis needed.

In reply to:

>Put signs near the Pavlov light at the door: "Wingsuiters: DO NOT OPEN YOUR WINGS >until 1 second out the door."

P.S. And every jumper on the plane can issue these reminders to the wingsuiters too, you know? I mean, what are we now -- skydivers sheep who stare in frozen terror at a threat and hope the new bureaucracy and grand exalted senseis sheepdogs will save us before we die?

2. Of the alleged strikes that involved newbies, how many had received no exit instruction?

Does it matter?

3. Why does it take a USPA rating to be able to tell a newbie to keep his/her wings closed on exit until the tail has passed by?

Does it matter? The wingsuit community has been asking for standardized instruction for 4 years. 82% of wingsuiters want it (according to uspa) Why can't people see that standardized training reaches a long way past the first wingsuit jump??? How many times did you practice E/P's in AFF before your first jump? would it not be good to establish a similar training protocol for WS students rather than someone on the internet or a sign saying "just keep your wings closed for one second"?

4. How come this insurance guy suddenly gets wind of the same set of alleged tail strike data as was presented to the USPA board?

You don't think that 1000 posts on FB, hundreds of tweets, a blog broadcast doesn't get attention? Maybe of the wrong people? I mean, It's not like they have to pay the bills for aircraft damage or anything.

Getting to participate in the DZO side of this conversation, I have already seen one more dropzone ban wingsuiting to just not have to deal with the problem.

To anyone who says "if you're jumping a wingsuit you know to keep your wings closed on exit", you're wrong. I have seen people with no practical knowledge try to go skydiving with a wingsuit.

I personally, would like to get to the point where I can be a wingsuit instructor/coach. The real question I have is, who should I get to teach me this stuff. I mean - I know all the practical basics, why don't I just put myself out there now as a first flight instructor. I want to see wingsuiting grow and I want to see my people in the air.

Reducing tailstrikes is simple: Make sure everybody keeps their wings closed for one second after the leave the plane. Period.

Apparently it is easy for people forget such things.

I do not believe that many wingsuiters that have hit the tail or come close have lacked the proper instruction.

Whether it is by formal training with USPA endorsed/certified instructors and curriculum, or more careful application of the more informal methods currently used, how will we accomplish the goal of getting people to not forget? I think that is what the focus needs to be, How can training achieve the goal of people not forgetting?

Maybe a ground simulator with electro-shock punishment for bad behavior?

Air Inc is the broker that pretty much exclusively provides hull insurance for skydiving aircraft in the USA. No Air Inc, no insurance, no industry, pretty much that simple.

Bottom line is that insurance companies do have a great effect on our industry and we have no choice but to listen to them unless you want skydives that cost $75 each.

Create policies all you want and tell people 'not to do it', but unless real action is taken, 'they' will ban the wing-suiting, not the DZO, and the DZO will follow suit because they have a huge mortgage on their airplane and they need the insurance.

It was a heads up - and all of us turbine operators got the email from Air Inc. And we are paying attention to it.

That does not mean we plan to ban anything, but we sure will be making sure the people on a wing-suit on our million dollar plus aircraft have a half clue what they are doing and have a plan to stick to it. And that they understand how serious WE are taking the issue.

Yes it matters a lot because the strikes I am aware of included people that really knew they needed to keep their wings closed.

What aircraft were these? I think a totally valid solution is to restrict wing suiting to the more forgiving aircraft.

To be clear you are saying that it would be acceptable to you to ban wingsuiting from DZ's entirely that don't operate higher tail aircraft. And that you find this position to be more reasonable than taking a serious look at establishing a formal training doctrine and instructors to over see it?

I'm sorry I just have a hard time agreeing with that. The insurance company(ies) might take that position in which case no one is gonna have much of a choice in the matter. But for us a community to cut the legs out from under potential wingsuiters because they can't regularly jump an Otter is just wrong.

EDIT: IIRC in one of the many threads on the WSI topic I seem to recall you being against for several reasons. One of which was access to a WSI at smaller dropzones. What you've posted above is clearly in disagreement with what I recall you saying earlier. If that wasn't you I apologize.

Would a WSI program fully prevent a tail strike from ever happening again? Of course not. Would it help? I think it couldn't hurt. Will insurance companies be happier if there was a formalized training program for wingsuiters? Yes, in their eyes and in reality it has a large potential to reduce risks associated with the discipline. Insurance whatever you want to say about it is largely about risk mitigation.

Yes it matters a lot because the strikes I am aware of included people that really knew they needed to keep their wings closed.

I still ride the fence on the "regulation" issue, but I am very interested in something from people who keep pointing out what you are. And a sidenote: your point seems true at face value, but then again I've never occupied the brains of those experienced wingsuiters who have hit tails, so I really can't say for sure what they knew, or what importance they placed on it. In another light though, it would appear to be NOT true, because if those people DID "know" how important it was, then they probably would NOT have made that mistake. But truth of that statement (and the semantics of the word "know") notwithstanding, let's continue...

So my question is... where are you going with that point? If it is true... it seems to me that if people who "know better" are still going to hit tails, then the only logical conclusion is that people will always hit tails (no matter what they know) and that there is no logical solution short of banning wingsuiting. Which I of course do not want, nor do you... so I wonder where you are going with this line of reasoning.

So... if people that know better will hit tails (of planes like Otters)... then what? What do you propose? Why do you keep bringing that up? Even if it's true, I'm not sure it helps our cause, because it sounds like a logical dead end, mainly designed to hold off regulation. It would be a shame to win at holding off regulation (and again I have no dog in that fight) only by losing at the chance of ever wingsuiting at a big DZ again.

Will insurance companies be happier if there was a formalized training program for wingsuiters? Yes, in their eyes and in reality it has a large potential to reduce risks associated with the discipline. Insurance whatever you want to say about it is largely about risk mitigation.

Insurance companies don't give a rats tail if a training program is put in place. They're bean counters! They only care about their investments not being put at risk. The only thing they will warm up to is ... No More Tail Stikes.

To be clear you are saying that it would be acceptable to you to ban wingsuiting from DZ's entirely that don't operate higher tail aircraft. And that you find this position to be more reasonable than taking a serious look at establishing a formal training doctrine and instructors to over see it?

I think this is reasonable (from a DZO perspective) because people that definitely know better are still forgetting to do it the right way. As I said before, the current situation is that people that have been trained to not screw up still do screw up.

So, how do we keep people from forgetting to do it the right way every single time? Until we figure out how to do that, I don't think any more formal/expensive/endorsed by whatever governing body training program is going to change things. The training/procedures/I don't know what needs to change, but we don't yet know how it should change.

Will insurance companies be happier if there was a formalized training program for wingsuiters? Yes, in their eyes and in reality it has a large potential to reduce risks associated with the discipline. Insurance whatever you want to say about it is largely about risk mitigation.

Insurance companies don't give a rats tail if a training program is put in place. They're bean counters! They only care about their investments not being put at risk. The only thing they will warm up to is ... No More Tail Stikes.

Certainly but they charge premiums based on the associated composite risk score. An analogy would be Motorcycle Safety Foundation courses. IIRC there are still only two: Basic and Advanced. Having completed a course and providing proof to your insurer will result in a lower premium. Why? Completion of the course and receiving the course card signifies that you have demonstrated a certain level of text book knowledge as well as demonstrated the ability to handle the bike.

Whether this model would hold true with wingsuiting and skydiving a/c premiums... I'd like to actually read one of these policy documents. I'm wondering what is in there currently.

To be clear you are saying that it would be acceptable to you to ban wingsuiting from DZ's entirely that don't operate higher tail aircraft. And that you find this position to be more reasonable than taking a serious look at establishing a formal training doctrine and instructors to over see it?

I think this is reasonable (from a DZO perspective) because people that definitely know better are still forgetting to do it the right way. As I said before, the current situation is that people that have been trained to not screw up still do screw up.

So, how do we keep people from forgetting to do it the right way every single time? Until we figure out how to do that, I don't think any more formal/expensive/endorsed by whatever governing body training program is going to change things. The training/procedures/I don't know what needs to change, but we don't yet know how it should change.

My thoughts on this mirrors a few other's I've spoken with. Standardizing the basic training associated with wingsuiting would IMO begin creating a culture within wingsuiting that would be a little more aware and safety conscious. This doesn't mean that all the fun is going to be sucked out of it.

If I go up on a CRW jump with someone who has 20 or 30 jumps in discipline I more or less know what to expect. If I go up on a wingsuit jump with a guy that has 20-100 wingsuit jumps I have no clue what I'm going to bear witness to.

The FAA and Insurance companies will be more amenable if they see standardization efforts occurring. This is very similar to aviation flight schools that ignored the FAA FITS system and TAA training. Eventually the FAA persuaded schools to "see the light" and standardize with the rest of the country, and they became eligible for federal $$ again. (or in this case, able to continue flying wingsuits out of insured aircraft). Any ban on wingsuiting from anyone other than a DZO, will destroy the WS industry, from manufacturing, sales, training, jump tickets bought (and even rentals too).

Gobble Gobble hits it on the head up there. Dont think I could have put it much better myself, on either post. only thing to add ~

We can do something, or we can do nothing. If we do nothing, we might be able to jump out of balloons, but that'll be about it. 3 more drop zones since this email went out have banned wingsuiting. Insurance companies don't negotiate. They will, however, see standardization as a means of mitigating risk.

if this is not proof positive to anyone who has not seen this to be a threat to all of our ability to fly a wingsuit out of an aircraft if we so choose, then you must be drunk with Elvis right now. If these events continue, no-one but a few of us will notice if wingsuiting in the US disappears. And that would just suck.

This is still my primary issue (of a few) with this entire discussion. Take another look at that blurry list image you posted. How many locations do you see? How many specific dates? Where are names that can be verified?

You won't find them there. Or anywhere, for that matter. This is just a typed out list of aircraft names and events that supposedly happened. That no one can verify (except for the person who put it together via word of mouth).

Let's assume all of these did happen. How many of them actually involved damage to the aircraft, and how many of them were "near misses" as was originally reported? What constitutes a "near miss"?

Why all the secrecy? Why are we basing this whole discussion on hearsay?

I've asked repeatedly for specifics so I can know the justification for what's being proposed, and the person putting this together tells me he won't reveal them because he wants to protect the confidentiality of the DZ's in question. (And also he wants to make sure that people will continue to tell him when bad things happen.)

Call me crazy, but making sure that people tell you what they heard happened at the DZ today is hardly a good basis for a study of how many incidents we had last year. Eyewitness accounts? Awesome. But so far, I haven't met anyone who was actually there at one of these supposed incidents, with the exception of one. If this were a courtroom, the person presenting the evidence would be asked to come back with something more substantial.

And here we are, trying to discuss a big change of regulation in our sport...all based on a report with details redacted.

Whoever passed this list along to Air, Inc., obviously left out some important details. And as discussions on this board can verify, things can look pretty darn troubling with details left out.

This troubles me.

--

I'm not saying I would immediately jump onboard with a wingsuit instructor rating if all those details came out. But at least if we could verify that they actually happened, and get some more info (has this person been jumping wingsuits since 1999? Are they new? Were they already breaking the BSR's?). If nothing else, that could help us discern whether taking what's already written in the SIM as a BSR and making it so someone with a rating has to actually teach it to you will help the issue, or if it won't.

Obviously, with as many blogs, posts, and bs about why we dont need to anything, there's a reason this has come to the attention of fortunately the insurance companies instead of the FAA first. They pay the repair bills. They are giving us a heads up, and the opportunity to fix it before they do. The FAA wouldn't. I think we should.

If the information provided thus far isn't enough to make anyone realize the scope of this situation, remember, NASA faked the moon landings too...

Obviously, with as many blogs, posts, and bs about why we dont need to anything, there's a reason this has come to the attention of fortunately the insurance companies instead of the FAA first. They pay the repair bills. They are giving us a heads up, and the opportunity to fix it before they do. The FAA wouldn't. I think we should.

If the information provided thus far isn't enough to make anyone realize the scope of this situation, remember, NASA faked the moon landings too...

Scotty Burns

Thanks for the more non-blurry version, Scotty!

As other people can now see, there are no identifying locations or names of the incidents. I'd still like to actually know where these events happened, and hear some firsthand reports. It's currently a game of telephone, with no way to verify that's how things actually went down.

Additionally, some of these don't necessarily lend themselves to the idea that a training program would help. Of the 10 listed from 2011 (I thought there were 12?), we've got:

2 incidents with jumpers with >100 wingsuit jumps

5 incidents of jumpers with more than 50 wingsuit jumps

3 incidents with jump counts unverified (but one of those is a demo jump, so one could assume the person is Pro-rated and has a significant number of wingsuit jumps)

1 incident with Euros as the amount of damage (which suggests it's not a USPA incident, and possibly took place in a country that already has training programs).

A lot of incidents with missing data (which makes me wonder if any more of them happened away from the U.S.)

...and 1 non tail strike where someone got bitten by the door and broke their ankle. (I've hit the door on FS jumps more than I choose to count, and there's an incident thread open right now about someone who broke her arm exiting for a 2-way belly jump. Why are we pitching this as a "tail strike?")

All of these make me wonder how big of a problem we have here in the U.S., and particularly among new wingsuit jumpers who would benefit from a formalized teaching of the existing BSRs. Unless we're going to set up new requirements for recurrency every year, I'm not sure an education program will do much.

I'm obviously not convinced we need a formalized program. But I'm willing to consider it. I just haven't yet seen good, verifiable evidence that we have a huge, *code red* problem, or that this mandatory education program will fix it. I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat - I'm just trying to be objective here, on the occasion of a few people who make money training wingsuiters presenting information to try and push for wingsuit training to become mandatory. I think the best thing we can do is to keep an open mind and to get all the information out in the open, so the USPA members can do their own due diligence and make an informed decision.

-------

Additionally, if these numbers are accurate, I'm curious about the trend. There were no tail strikes in 2010, and only one in the prior year by a very experienced wingsuiter. And then supposedly 12 in 2011. (Or 11, if you exclude the Euro-DZ.) (Or 10, if you don't count the door bite.)

I'd like to know how many tail strikes we've counted in 2012 so far. Is it trending upward, or was 2011 the outlier moment that always seems to happen with new skydiving disciplines (freeflying and swooping included) when people finally realize, "Crap. This shit can kill you"?

Why all the secrecy? Why are we basing this whole discussion on hearsay?

It's not heresay - it 16 incidents of tail strikes, 11 in the past year. There is no heresay. All the insurance company cares about is the numbers, that is true. We, as an industry are expected to do something about those numbers else reap the consequences.

Quote:

All of these make me wonder how big of a problem we have here in the U.S.,

ditto - it is a problem of 16 stikes, 11 in the past year, apparently costing tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to aircraft. THAT is how big the problem is. The same planes flown int eh USA are being flown around the world. It does not matter where they happen, it matters IF they happen.

almost a tailstrike per month is A LOT. if they are discussed/announced, measures could be taken. If they are hidden, suddenly the total numbers announced are HUGE. I do understand the will of insurance companies to have a change in that.